Racism is definitely still a serious issue and always will be. The fact that racism is no longer necessarily a "black or white" issue has led people to believe it no longer exists or is no longer a serious issue. On the contrary, not only is it a serious issue, but the fact that people are ignorant enough to believe it is not, is an issue of its own. People simply do not pay attention to what goes on around them and think that if racism between blacks and whites is not as prevalent then racism is on its way to being nonexistent. The racism between blacks and whites is just being transferred elsewhere. Nowadays, Americans have racist views towards other people of darker complexions, i.e. Hispanics, and Middle Easterners. Replacing racist views toward one population with racist views toward another is not really progress and to think so is stupid. In addition, the light-hearted "acceptance" of things like racist jokes or being able to conceal the racism in other ways does not mean anything. People who are not racist may laugh at racist jokes as they see why the joke was made (what stereotype it plays off) or because they are too nervous or weak-minded to actually stand up and defend against it. In addition to this "new" racism based on color or background, there is economical racism where people are not so much "nigger" or "honky/cracker" but "white trash" or "ghetto." They are judged based on their status in society and mistreated in the same way. Has your education system failed you as much as theirs have failed them in the sense that we are all blind to this? There are too many ways to show that racism is still a serious issue and the fact that the trends of racism evolve without notice is another serious issue. Americans will be racist against anyone we are at war against, anyone "taking our jobs," or anyone we do not quite understand. Lack of education and the fact that we do not seriously think about anything important will keep it that way and I am sure by the time we do start thinking, we will find something else to judge people on or we will be the victims of the judgment.

In addition, war does not keep us safe as the other side's tag line states. If it is fought abroad, it minimizes our perceived danger level, however, those who go to fight are not safe. I think many people do not mind war so much as they feel it can never be brought to our land. If a war was actually fought here or people actually experienced what it was like to be in a place where a war was being fought, they would change their views on war and whether or not they think it necessary.

I do not believe that a political leader should be openly religious if by that you mean they are always commenting on their religion, using it as a crutch to lean on, or giving it as a reason for all of their decisions. On the other hand, if by openly religious you mean that they are not afraid to talk about what they believe in when it comes to spirituality, upon other's request, then that is not being openly religious; it is being honest. I am not sure what your opinion is, but I believe honesty is a good trait in a leader. The fact that politicians are attacked or ridiculed for believing something or being perceived to believe something when it has nothing to do with their ability do their job is stupid. This is especially true as most of the reasons the public and media tend to care are based off of false stereotypes and ignorance. In turn, politicians should not have to submit to these pressures and compromise their beliefs (or become liars) in order to gain favor of those who have no beliefs and do not think for themselves. Furthermore, I do not believe the public has a clear understanding of the difference between religious views and beliefs/morals/values. Religious views address whether you consider yourself Catholic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. Although people may link whether they think something is right or wrong with their religious views, that actually has less to do with it than your own thought process (unless you do not think and just go with whatever is taught in your religion). To clarify, what someone's religion says, is not always what that person believes and as a leader, that person will not compromise his beliefs and go with whatever is taught to him; therefore, those religious views are not that individual's beliefs and will not affect how he leads. That is a clear distinction between beliefs and religious views and based on that, a person's beliefs are their beliefs no matter what religion they are. As a result, contrary to chewie's statement, they should always let their beliefs influence their political views and decisions because that would only be supporting what they feel is right. In the same light, faith is just a strong conviction in what you believe so if someone is blind enough to believe that someone's faith is NOT going to influence a person's decisions, that someone is very ignorant or must want a leader who will not stand up for what they believe in. You should ALWAYS rely on a persons faith/beliefs to influence their decisions and if you do not then I do not believe it matters what you think of political leaders because you clearly have not thought it through at all or think that political leaders are people who should be easily persuaded to compromise their beliefs. In either case, your thoughts (if any) on the idea of political leadership should be considered irrelevant and, sorry to say, but your vote should not even count.

No surprise at all. ASU student body BY FAR!

I see it the same as well. I even think that they should stretch it out enough to say that if you are with your parents, or some type of responsible guardian, you should be able to have a couple drinks at dinner or a family party before 18. As pointed out in other points, things like this exist and for some reason kids in those countries do not turn out to be the bingers we are (or they at least handle it better than we do). In addition, if at 18, kids are allowed to choose to start smoking and become addicted to nicotine which is by far more addictive than alcohol, then they should be able to dabble in something that they have more of a chance of quitting or cutting back on later in life. Of course alcohol can have more dramatic short-term effects if the kid does not know how to handle himself/herself and does something stupid, but long-term smoking can lead to a greater variety of health problems (not 100% proven) for yourself and those around you. Also, when it comes to the drinking and driving issue, this affects drinkers of any age, whether legal or not. That can only be solved by personal accountability or a fear of getting caught or crashing. Everyone knows that there are great risks in drinking and driving, however, many people who drink choose to drive at the end of the night anyway. In some cases, they do attribute their talents at doing so to the fact that they have "been doing this since they learned to drive and nothing will happen," but this does not mean lowering the drinking age will increase this occurrence. I'd say in many cases, kids will be more willing to call their parents for a ride if they weren't afraid of getting in trouble for drinking in the first place. Lastly, and one that we do not want to acknowledge as much, is parents and older siblings set the example for younger high schoolers. I have seen or rode with my friends siblings and parents after I knew they had been drinking in many instances...."if they can do it, it must not be that bad, Right?"

Not really the "political route" but he mainly just stuck to storytelling, hustlin, and the streets. Tupac, on the other hand, made it a point to talk about the sociological issues of the community (not only the "black" community but in general). This is why I say he showed versatility when it came to the topics he rapped about and why I also think he was a smarter guy when it came down to it. He was just able to do more at the end of the day.

Besides the obvious facts stated, think of the other athletes who have morals and will not turn to cheating antics to gain an edge. I would not want to be in a position in a contact sport such as football, hockey, or boxing, going up against some juiced up animal, when all I have is my natural size and talent. We'd all love to see it happen, but realistically, this isn't the Rocky saga (actually, we all know he was juiced to so I guess even more in line, it's not David and Goliath). In addition, these players put themselves through enough; if the regulators gave them the go-ahead to juice, they would all but have no choice and that would leave them with even worse health issues later in life. These player associations are already trying to deal with the issues players and their families have to deal with today, this would only make it worse. Lastly, careers would last no where close to what they can do now for a couple different reasons. Players would be killing each other, and would not want to play as long in order to limit the years off their lives they already have to face. Most of this is mostly addressing the issue if it was allowed in contact sports, but that's just what interests me more. Baseball's a good sport and all, but every time a record is being broken, it's yet another droid and we just have to prove that he is juicin'.

I've "debated" this one on many different occasions and have come to the following conclusions. Although Tupac was, of course, a great rapper and a very smart man, I do happen to enjoy Biggie slightly more. First off, if you go through your ipod and the over 150 Tupac songs, how many of them are you really feelin? I find that I really like a higher percentage of Biggie for some reason. It is true he wasn't able to make as much music as Pac but this is a big thing to look at. Biggie also had way more sick lines that just made you stop and think..."He really just said that?" To verify this, just go listen to the first lines of his freestyle with Mister Cee that starts, "Biggie Smalls is the wickedest, n!gg@z say I'm p#ssy, I dare ya ta stick ya dick in this, if i was p#ssy i'd be filled wit syphillis, herpes, gonhorea, chlamydia, gettin rid of ya...." The pun he even used there is crazy, saying even if he was p#ssy, he'd still find ways to take you out....now that's sick and thats among many, many others. They also have different styles as well. However, Biggie never really went the political route so you can definitely give Pac the edge in that category. Pac was more versatile and his music could straight influence your thoughts for the rest of the week. He was definitely a smarter guy and could talk about way more ideas and issues than Big could. All in all, I like Biggie more, but there were some limitations to what he did and therefore I must regrettably say that is what gave Pac the slight edge and a slightly better rapper in general.